_------ - I - - - - I

2 Architects '10 Questions ' · on Program Rem Koolhaas +

Bernard Tschumi Questions written by Ana Miljacki, Amanda Reeser Lawrence, and Ashley Schafer.

Praxis Volume 8http://www.praxisjournal.net/home.htm

I Re:Programming Amanda Reeser Lawrence and Ashley Schafer

"A programme is a description of the spatial dimensions, spatial

relationships and other phys'1cal conditions required for the con­

venient performance of specific functions." -John Summerson, "The Case for a Theory of Modern Architecture," 1957

"A contemporary sense of program ... might not privilege architec­

ture in the conventional sense." -Anthony Vidler, "Towards a

Theory of Architectural Program," 2003

Some twelve months after deciding to devote an issue of PRAXIS

to the most ~:umenical of architectural topics, we still find our­

selves asking: what is program anyway? What began as an inno­

cent inqu'1ry into the status of program today-some thirty years

after it was first resuscitated from modernist functionalist doc­

trine-quickly became a venture into labyrinthine and contested

territory. The more we tried to clarify what program is and how it

operates 'in contemporary discourse, the more elusive Jli, definition

became. For while architects almost universally addfess the most

pragmatic understanding of program-a listing of specific uses

and requirements, often accompanied by square footage alloca­

tions-this definition of program as "brief" fails to capture the

range of impl1cat'1ons the term has acquired in architectural parl­

ance and practice. Beyond this simple and simplifying denotation

of program lies a complex, ambiguous, and ultimately paradoxical

set of ideas. We found that the mere mention of this issue's topic

often elicited a highly contentious debate regarding its relevance

and implication for designers today.

The dispute over the significance and instrumentality of pro­

gram as a design consideration is not surprising given its equivocal

architectural status over the last half century. By the mid-1970s,

postmodernism had all but banished the term from architectural

discourse, as program's association with the overly deterministic

rhetoric of modernist functionalism had exhausted its agency for

architects. For early modernists, program was effectively equiva­

lent to function, with the resulting development that just as "form

followed function," so too "form followed program." Post-war mod­

els of efficiency that mandated a direct correlation between form

and use only further sanctioned the nearly direct translation of

program into form-what John Summerson, in 1957, fittingly

called "the physical conditions required for the convenient per­

formance of specific functions." The result of which provoked the

post-modern neo-avant-garde's near-total rejection of program as

an obsolete vestige of functionalist polemics.

It was this debased status from which Bernard Tschumi and Rem

Koolhaas 'recovered' program and imbued it with the legacy of

indeterminacy that it maintained for the next thirty years. With

Manhattan as their research laboratory Tschumi and Koolhaas

simultaneously, but individually, recaptured the notion of program

and reconceptualized its use through theories of indeterminacy

and excess. In both the Manhattan Transcripts and Delirious New

York (both 1978) 1 , program was liberated from its affiliations with

functionalism and a prescriptive relationship to form. As Tschumi

wrote, "1n today's world where railway stations become museums

and churches become nightclubs a point is being made: the com­

plete interchangeability of form and function, function does not

follow form and form does not follow function"2 These seminal

works recast program's parameters to include multiple configura­

tions of spaces and, reciprocally, proposed the possibility that a

given form or space could house any number of programs. This

new conception of program became almost the exact opposite of

its linear modernist predecessor: programs could be crossed (''pole

vaulting in the chapel"), superposed ("the quarterback tangos on

the skating rink"), juxtaposed ("eating oysters with boxing gloves,

PRAXIS B

naked, on the nth floor"). or redeployed (using the section of the

Downtown athletic club as the plan for La Villette.) 3

While there are significant parallels in their development of pro­

grammatic theory, there are also substantial differences in both

form and content. Tschumi's Transcripts take the form of theoreti­

cal drawings, with accompanying text, while Koo!haas's "retroac­

tive manifesto'' is a journalistic text accompanied by "fictional"

drawings. Koo\haas establishes a generic, or formally indifferent,

attitude toward program: all programs, however diverse, are sub­

ject to the same formal logic (witness his competition entry for La

Villette in which he establishes a relentless series of dimensionally

invariable bands uninflected by the program they house}. Form is

generic, but program is specific. In Tschumi's La Villette, on the

other hand, form is specific and program generic. The grid of highly

articulated red follies has no predetermined program; form and

function are interchangeable. Together, these works constitute a

body of research significant in that they transformed program from

a spatially (and most often formally) determinant instrument to an

indeterminate one, reintroducing program as a generative tool.

If these programmatic propositions no longer appear to

embody the radical potential they did in tha seventies, it is only

because they have been fully assimilated into contemporary

architecture culture. As such, we felt sufficiently indebted to

these programmatic fomenters to begin the issue with an inter­

view about their early work, as they have undeniably transformed

the way we understand program today. Nearly thirty years later

their programmatic speculations have been concretized: in

Tschumi's "event-spaces," such as the hub of Lerner Hall and the

central space at The Marne School of Architecture, and in

Koolhaas's Seattle Public Library, whose shifted programmatic

strips actualize the diagrammatic analyses of both the Downtown

Athletic Club and his Park de la Villette proposal. These projects

manifest the development from a theory of program to its applica­

tion in practice. With the nee-avant-garde experiments of thirty

years ago now realized as mult1-mil\ion dollar buildings, the oppor­

tunity for re-assessing program has re-emerged. The actualiza­

tion of these ideas in built form has liberated a new generation of

architects to move beyond these prescribed solutions; paradoxi­

cally, the formalization of programmatic ideas has re-opened

avenues of inquiry into program once again.

What, then, are the opportunities for program today? While virtu­

ally every architectural project addresses program as brief, the proj­

ects in this issue are unique in that they move beyond not only the

modernist, deterministic application of program, but also beyond the

1970s models of programmatic indeterminacy. If Tschumi and

Koolhaas repositioned program's role from the composition of spatial

arrangements -in which function was prescriptively translated into

form-to the generation of relational scenarios-that accommo­

dated heterogeneous and unforeseen events-the definition of pro­

gram appears to be expanding yet again The architects in this issue

of PRAXIS are reappropriating program in two important ways: one,

by questioning the received architectural understanding of program,

further distancing it from its modernist associations with 'use' or

'function'; and two, by elaborating various strategies for organizing

::inrl r1r.r.nrnmnrl;;:itina matter and information as oroqram. Buildinq

Editorial: Re:Programmirig

This new programmatic material is imbued with a particular u~

or function in accordance with its inherent characteristics. F( example, R&Sie's dust-collecting skins, draped between whil

gallery boxes to capture and envelop the B-mu museum's collecti\

functions, or the layered skins of VJAA's Tulane Student Centi

that define a fluid and permeable zone between interior and ext1

rior. Beyond the incorporation of new materials into the repertoi1

of what is programmed, these architects are also extending the ta

tics for how material is programmed, further elaborating possibi

ties for developing program as an organizational strategy. In tr "Program Primer," WORK Architecture Company provides perha~

the clearest elaboration of this approach, offering a set of code

instructions that propose myriad tactics for working with, ar

manipulating, various programs. In the seventies, programmat

theory preceded its implementation, but today the reconceptua\iz

tion of program is emerging largely from practice. This is part of tr

reason why the term remains so problematic-not on!y because,

its complex legacy but, more importantly, because it is continuous

redefined in contemporary architectural practice.

This elusive definition of architectural program 1s also caused t a broader shift in the term, specifically to its increasingly domina1

associations in contemporary culture. With the emergence of tr

personal computer as a household accessory in the last decad

"program" has acquired an entirely new set of connotations, one

reserved for computer scientists. The term is now ubiquitous

understood as a function of software, and increasingly the specif

and technical definition of program as "a set of coded instru·

tions" 4 is pertinent to architects both literally and as an operatic

aligned with its deployment as an organizational strategy. Th

recent transformation has empowered architects to see what w<

traditionally understood as a given program as something that cc

be reprogrammed at will.

More than merely accommodating a fixed and passive prograr

one can now choose to define the fundamental parameters of wh

is to be programmed, reintroducing architectural agency into tr

act of programm1ng.5 As program's material palette expands, so<

the opportunities and range of operations for its architectur

application, enabling it to become generative once again. Progra

is longer simply acted upon but is itself activ~Jn sho_r!,. i_~_t_s requc

i fie~_.from_ano.un..la.known entityl..to ~~rQ_ @!1 action -~e_nt_v,Ji

multiple potentials) 1Armed with an opportunity to program,< ~--·-----· ·- -emerging group of designers Isn't "getting with the program" it

programm~

1 The Manhattan Transcripts was first exhibited in 1978 at Artist's Space m

New York and subsequently published in 1981.

2 Bernard Tschumi, Architecture and Disjunction (Cambridge: MIT Press), 1996

p. 255.

3 Tschumi, Architecture and Disjunction, "Spaces and Events" p. 146, Tschumi,

The Manhattan Transcripts, p. 11, Koolhaas, Delirious New York, p. 155.

4 The most digitally-savvy architects are literally writing codes and scripts whi(

program outcomes.

5 As PRAXIS editors we have also taken up the polemica! challenge of rethinkin

program-specifically how one might "re-program" a journal. Working with Alice

Chung arid Karen Hsu of Omnivore, we used this issue as an opportunity to recc

ceptualize our format, jetti.soning the underlying grid and adopting an organiza­

tional strategy based ori the content itself, responding to a desire for greater

fl .. ,,;hdjrv :mrl ;a mnni fluid relationshio between text and imaqe-ultimately, evE

PRAXIS B Koolhaas + Tschumi. On Program 7

1. What role does program play in your current practice and how has it evolved

since it first emerged in your thinking and design? Has the shift of your work

from paper (both writing and design) to practice changed the way you concep­

tualize and/or use program?

!<\)ULH.,\A~, 1/Voulcl it be shock111g 1f I cl.J1n1ed that 1t 1s no cl1rferer1t tl1,1111t LJSl:cl to IJe? It

1s str,11ghtforwc1rd Nly wor-k w1(h prograrn begJn as d desire to pLn-sue different n1eans

of eAprl':'Ss1on th.Jt ,1vere similar to wrrt1ng screenpk:iys At ar11nterest1ng mornent rny

obsession with scrrpt wnt111g Jlrnost randon1ly intersected the 1NorlcJ of construct1v1srn,

ancl with thJt I cliscoverecl an exceptionally interesting hybricl. where any aspect of daily

life could be in1c1gi11ed arid enc1cted through the ar·chitect's i1nag111ation

I th111k that there are underly'1ng structu1-es ·1n the process of architectural cr-eat1on

and design that critics never recognize For instance, the difference bet,11een a com­

petition and a co1n1n1ssion dictates your room to rr1aneuver and h;:is a decisive

1111pact on the design. As the Seattle Library was presented to a Board of Trustees it

he.id to be understood as a linear-, logical process Porto. on the other hand. was a

cornpetition so 1t could be a totally irrational, insane. and surprising project. Seattle

had to be diagran1matic-i11 order to win the commission. we had to generate mate­

rial that explained it step by step as an educational process. There is a dialectic

dimens'1on to this project, which was not my motivation, but beca1ne a tool for acer­

tain explanation of the project

Program increasingly has another connotation for me, which is closer to agenda. I

have been trying to find ways that we could circurnvent or avoid the architect's pas­

s·1vity and by th.is I n1ean his or her dependence on the initiatives of others. However

it is framed and pursued, our agenda/program is an important tern1 for me, to the

extent that-contrary to my longstanding reputation as a capitalist sell-out and

cynical bystander in the process of globalization-I vvas actually very inlerested ir1

select1vo part·1cipation. The key is be'1rig "selective" while also looking for strategies

that 1Nould allow us to pursue (programn1atically) our own interests AIVIO has been

I an i1nportant part of that initiative, affo[JJiD_QL c- a9c9_a_~..Ql-~n_s_Ja.re.de.f1ne....the ini-

.Jr ti~_p_coj~ctb_rie.f. tbr.ough the addition o .P.olJtica_(_~r-~_ultu1-al _cJ11~~-~~~~e have

just completed a compet'1tion in Dubai for av museurn th"aTincludes components

of the Hern1itage, the rate, and the Serpentine and that forms arnaloan1at·1ons in cul·

tur·e and politics. This kind of prograrnn1ing ;-,llows u~ to finc1!!'i. ~g_ag.e_~J~['.1.Ctice

th~~ r·e,Jlly interests n1e

Br·i(~f 1s rnr.nely an architectural word, but for-rne program 1s a vvurd that exceeds

that ::,heer lirnitntion I cHn not suCjgest1ng that we are not 111terest~cl 1n br18l'3-1.,ve

.-1re hiqhly literal about briefs_ In fc1ct, in a certain way, 1Ne ::Jr-e e.;:1rnest nnrJ 111nocent,

1naybe too earnest and innoce11t In Porto, the Berlin Enibassy, 11 r. ,:11:c! Seattle 'lie lit·

P.rdlly pushed the brief 111 ,1 particulnr critie,11 cl1n:~ction to produce spec.ific nffects In

th,1t SfJnse I wouldn't cl.11rn any soph1st1cat1on or unrqueness 1r1 r)ur 1pprnach

' 0

"

TSCHUMI: My current practice explores a number of dif­

ferent issues and concepts. Program is only one of them.

Envelopes, movement vectors, and, more recently, a new

questioning of contexts are among our lines of research.

The shift from paper to practice really happened with the

shift from The Manhattan Transcripts of 1978-81 to La Villette in 1982-83, since I had consciously entered the

La Villette competition in order to move from "invented"

programs to a "real" program, from pure mathematics to

applied mathematics.

What strikes me is that some of the theoretical themes

from years past are still present in our work today, but now

practice precedes theory as often as theory once pre­

ceded practice. It ls a very fluid relationship. For example,

the recent forew9rQ on_"Cancepts, contexts, conten..ts" in

E vg_nt:Ci.tie_s--9_ ~a~!!lY _c9ns~_jo_u~ _c!ttempt t~ post-theorize

what I had l!;!arned from our prac_tice.

In our recent projects, concepts often begin as much

with_~tegy~qout content or program as wit_h a strat­

egy a~9.~t contexts. tor example, in our conceptualization

of Dubai, a "cultural island" with an opera house, we pur­

posefully revisited an earlier programmatic concept (the

strips of our opera house in Tokyo of 1986) by combining it

with our recent research on double env~loees.

2. What is the relationship between program and form? And event? And poli­

tics? (Feel free to answer any one or all three of these questions)

1/,/;., ild\'C' led:ned 1.l1i:1•_ ~i1er·c: 1~; 11-:"11 __ 11-:1 ,, rf.:l.::it1c1n:;l111J bct'..'<'('.f1n pro(_Jrc~•-:1 ,lll(I fu:111 111 tr-c [Jd':;:

thief-' )'Cd,-~ wc!'-v'c c11~1-'ir,.1ed 111 rdd1ca! C'):pr'r 1rncr•t;::it1011 tl·.cJt ell li:-rl('S pr oducecl Cffl 0.1tre1ne ic1;1-

t1011sh,1J oetweer1 µro~p-.:=wn zn1d fo11n w!i1lc at O[hcrs pr·ocJucecl 110 relat1onsli1p, which s1n1ply

show'.:> hu,!.' unbc:1evc:1bi/ unstc1lJ!e. un:,pec1r1c, and also 111cons1stent 1t can be It 1s 1r11poss1ble to

.Jbstract fron1 these pr·oJ~Cts a sir-1~J!e d1rect10,1 for the off1cf::', but the relat1onshrp of forn1 and

pro~Jr a1111s ;1lwc.1ys a large p1·eoccupat1on The fact that the users of these proJects have appr·opr1-

atecl thern all vv1th relish 1s 1ncr·ecJ1bly s1c1nif1cant to n1e None of ther11 suffers frorn the slightest

dysfunction or· offense to its users The Dutch Embassy en1ployees are unbelievably happy to

use 1t the ,,,av 1t was intended to work, even though that was not obvious when it was designed

Althour:1h forn1 and pol1t1cs is a ternpt1r1g subject, I'll address your question abouI pr·ogran1 and

politics Contrary to our off1c1al stance as cynical bystanders, we have been trying to find ways to

c,-eate positions that enable us to address what interests us rather than being an extension of

the market econorny or developers' desires or individuals' desires, which intensely begs the ques­

tion of politics For instance there is a very strong connection to politics 1n the CCTV building No

other political system today would collect so many programs together in a single structure and

create as marl'y interconnections between different components 1n a single entity_ In the West.

the equivalent of the CCTV program would have been dismantled and distributed, while in China.

the consolidation 1s relished There 1s a direct correlation between centralization of program and

the presence of the state. We are not so much flirting with authoritarian regimes as investigating

the world and what systems enable what type of architecture

~ ·~-! ~ :C: -- _c D fl., c. -· ...J = -:", ~ r.c -. ' ~' ;:- ~'

~ ' ~

The relationship between program and form

can be one of reciprocity, indifference, or con­

flict. Let me explain. Reciprocity is when you

shape the program so that it coincides with the

form, or shape the form so that it reciprocates

the configuration you gave to the program.

Indifference is when a selected form can

accommodate any program, often resulting in a

deterministic form and an indeterminate pro­

gram. And with conflict you let program and

form purposefully clash-Le., pole vaultit1iJ in

the chapel or the running track through lhe

library reading room-so as to generate unex­

pected events.

But you must decide which one to use. That's

where architecture begins. There is no value

judgment here. All three are fine, depending on

your objectives for a given project.

A program is never neutral. The people who

draft it are full of preconceptions. The first

thing an architect needs to do is to dismantle

that program and redirect it. As an architect,

you need to have an agenda. My agenda is often

about generating public spaces or spaces of

encounters, like the generators and the court­

yard in the Miami School of Architecture or the

central linear court in the Athletic Center in

Cincinnati. Program is not the only issue to

address, but it is often what you start with.

Events? Events are different from programs.

A program relies on repetition and habit; it can

be written down and be prescriptive. In con·

trast, an event occurs unexpectedly. Your

design may contribute to conditions for some

future, unknown event to occur, but you do not

"design" the event. Programs and politics?

Programmatic configurations are always politi­

cal: a house with a corridor serving private

rooms has different political implications than a

house as a large loft space without doors.

·u: c_

t

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas • Tschumi: On Progr

3. How would you trace the genealogy of program?

"!

:' ,. I < I ' , r I <1'~:: I ·1 :

1,,.

Programs are as old as architecture. The first Greek temples began witl;

gram, not form. Most architects are blinded by form and ignore the paten'.

programs to generate forms. Think of department stores and railway statv

the 19th century: programs came first. It's the same with the merging(~

ports and shopping malls today.

What struck me early on was that most architects are unbelievably p .. ~1

towards programs. They accept them in a completely uncritical way, dress

up with forms, and thereby miss major opportunities. I admit to having beer

irritated vis-8-vis the prevalent ideologies of the seventies, whether th2

ernist "form follows form" dictum or the subsequent "form follows historica

sion" of architectural postmodernism. The programmatic dimension had be

an abandoned territory since the days of the early 20th century avant-g,c" .

. , ,1t •)1_;1. ,1Y1 1c·; \1c1r·y ~;,··111!,:,r :1) :i~i:: ;)U)Cpdr~1 1Jf De:1r1,_1u.s including constructivism and surrealism. In my case, 1 was also interested ir

· "\ · L1'.ilf:'' r!,,1, \ 1: ·, i r=;~:1 ,,~1·1,: t,~:, '·~·f- !YGc:;:·,::1111 '.:--' _,, ·:c_,._,1,_I oretical issues of intertexuality-mixing spaces and uses in odd or unexr·

1• ,./ , ·,11·1rc~11ts 01_11 111r_1 1 r I'/ ~11 n,:. ,,-1 ~-1~1"'' 'lnr"K. I 1/1:1•3 t1 y111~1 ro configurations, intersecting spatial envelopes with movement vectors.

,i":' r t:,:1t rhr~ city, nr· 1tc, c1rch1tp1:n;re, rl,11 ~,or jUSt h~l'/E:' ;1 pro

l!'I \Ju'. ·11.'::iS 111 fact a pr·oc,1r·an1 Thdt 1/1/;Js the 111te11t1ori ._11)cl

1IJ1~.on of t11e book

0 co rl

co N co

4. New York, 1976: You were pursuing research and developing theories of pro­

gram that spawned what became for both of you seminal publications: Delirious

New York and The Manhattan Transcripts. What was so urgent about the issue

of program at this moment? What made New York such fertile ground-both as

a working environment and as a subject-at that particular time?

Tuday there's a totcll b:i·1c1l1t'/ o! trcJvEJi ,VHl 111te:l~!CtlJdi trc:1fl1c

that didn't exist 111 the ~~ev('!l'.1E':, As c:1 vc'y t0ciir1:ccil Eu1·01)e:i1\ I

am deeply influenced bv c1l1110:;t arr; of the "1s·11s" tha\ have

comprised l=urope's i11stor·y Ther·eforcc I wc1s an1bit11)us enougf1

not so rnuch to warit rny own "1sm" but to look at the woricJ 1n

terms of "1sn1s" On the.011e hand, I felt a real d1se11char1tn1ent

with the slackening of rnociern1ty thzit was an outco111e of

'flower-power' or the ernergence of postn1ocler·nism And yet I

was simultaneously keer1ly aware of how manifestos then1-

selves had introduced so rnany failures that the 1Nrlole typolo~JY

could not be rescued

So I approached New York 1nclir·ectly, with a manifesto that

consisted of a volume or quantity of pre-existing evidence. I

took a journalistic but also a personal approach, which I had to

shield behind America. Bernard Tschumi's project seems much

more clearly a manifesto, or at least it more openly uses the

traditional methodology and appearance of a manifesto.

'ii b . '

0

j . ' e .2. 1 0 i~ z :. -~ c' ~ E " £ 6 ! •

IQ 4j C 8 0 ' ~ 'c· 0 m £ ·~ ~ • ~ E ·c e e E ~ ~ ' 0 c -a Ill ro • 0 . . ' • " ~ ] " ~ 8 O C ::;J a. c ~ 0 -~ ~£~ 0 --5 e> ,2 L c £ " ! -~~ ~ .e ~ "0

" ~ ' ! • £ ' Z 2:l ~ O c 2 c c - £ " • . - 0 ! c 0 0 ; . D u • ~ ~ ·~ 8...2 3: ro Ql > ~ c 0 . ,· ' • ~~ 0 >

O O ~ c a 0. 0

I came to New York from London because of an interest in the art scene, which

seemed to be in extraordinarily creative flux at the time. Many artist friends,

including Robert Longo, David Salle, Cindy Sherman, and Sarah Charlesworth,

had come to New York about the same time. For me, architecture was a blank

page: everything seemed to need to be invented. I became obsessed with New

York City itself, a city in which everything seemed possible. I also watched a lot

of black-and-white B·movies at the time. I was struck by how space and build­

ings could also be protagonists in the action. Performance art seemed a natu­

ral extension of conceptual art. These two forms of art practice echoed my

definition of architecture: as concept and experience, or the defi1ion of

space and the movement of bodies within it.

£ Iii · 1111~ -· ,. ~--·. _"_! . .. . :=· . . .. ,,

. . ....... .,0

to&~ ,o

/ ' - - q<o 0 ' \ I / \ , 6 -, \ d a... -l, 16~ ' ' ' 0 ' , 0 {7 ~ ~ ' ' \ .; '\ D p \ ( 0 / ' / ~--') '\)_/ T \

,_ / I , 0 . /

o•' \', ~ I • o'

Q Q

" ~ "' " -~ r • > i' ~· .f Ql 1 a...>l :~ --' B J ] ~ 0 2 ~ '

0 Z I- 0 ~ - S E - " "u::,

s:I' CX)

,.,-'" ~

:=; ~ .; u -.~ ,.[__ ? ;

L!) CX)

(0 CX)

,.... CX)

'

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas + Tschumi; On Program 11

5. Tell us about your time at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studie'.:'

and how it influenced your development as an intellectual and as a designerr

Who were your allies there?

I'. 'Nile; ,1 ~1r1:p \"1f,:::,n c:,r:' lr',·_-;t1~1_1IC' 'N,JS [KOi.J~lfY•; !r,1_,C" 'e;,-;s 1··1_1c_;r·c)'_JS <:1nrl ··:1·_1cii 'l:::''3S r·l(_llcJ Ill 1ts

. 1,. 1c1r11_-8S Ti1er~:: ,,-,.,_1·:; nol cl ·31.'lt}1S" i)01·::;0111il tri,ii: ;1er 1•Jd :n ~J1_;·,,1 'r'1Jrk ;h,_1t ! .,._,,-,·;; 'll)i_ .Jt sorne

Du1,·1l_ or to sor·:r_? e.<ter1~. sy11111.1tr't::'1:1c trJ ui- 1nvul'/(!cl ·:,11t11. Clr· 1'1i·u i_l1d P1)t 111 '::;1 ;1•'.12 ·'l'1ays 1nf!u­

t-incP 1Nh~-1t I v-1,:is du111g

rh~; \11g u11k11nw111n this stor·y is thP. n1r!uF_,·1ce of 1'1t::itth,c:1s Unr:J·=':.:; I ~pc•1c c1 y<:-J.Jr-(1972j .1t

Cor·nell prior· to qo1nci to i"-le1N Yc1,·k. which //,JS s1ry11f1c:1n~ T1-~t.:·re ·-h(:r·e t_v10 pher101nenJ thc1t

1:1c1de 1t wr1portc111t F1r·st. stucly1n~1 v11th Ungcrs e,:.posed rne '.o 1·1s '·N,1Y o~ th1nk1ng, pJrt1cu­

l,Hly his conceptual iJb1l1t1es to think about c1t1es 1',11cnel Foucc1ult c1lso hci[Jpenecl to be

teaching there that year. as well as Hecbert Dc1n11sch, another Fr·ench ir1tellectuc1I with 1Nhorn

I lJec,Jrne close fnencls. He introduced rne to Foucault. so even before arriving 111 ~Jew Yor·k I

:.rent cl year 1n America in1111ersecl 1n Fr·ench lntellectL1al cul turT:\ which r eir1 fort;ecl niy c1 lreacly

con,;1cler·,1ble 1nvolven1ent with Roland Barthes' wo1 k

YVe1rclly enough I think I was n1ore inteliectual thzin c-iny or lfler11, but I wds 1t1ork111~i on a

proJect that seemed less intellectual than any of their ideas They ,,,irn·e all outside architec­

ture. and so that V'IJS a kind of double, an interesting stereo thJt was n1ore literary than

architectural Maybe Delirious New York is about architecture. but ,tis more a literary cre­

c:ition-more writing than thinking.

The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies

with its conJoined publications, was one of the onl,.

architectural settings at the time that graspe{

architecture as part of a rigorous intellectual dis

course. But many of the interests of the lnstitut,

were quite distant from my own. Again, I felt close

to the New York art scene of the time. I was at th1

Institute for just one year, 1976. Perhaps beini

there sharpened my desire to challenge the fo,r

malized discourse on the primacy of form. I bega·

The Manhattan Transcripts immediately aft>12

leaving the Institute. Allies? Ironically enough, th,

key people at the Institute really became rr.

friends only after I left

6. What was the status of program in this laboratory of Eisenman-inspirec

formalism?

I wr·ote Delirious New Yori<. when I returnee! to London. I d1cl tlie I esearch l"or it In the early Institute years, Eisenman wrote an editorial

111 f\lew York, but I couldn't \/'!rite there. Gack 1n Lo11clon, I ~1,:1ve ct ~3erios of lee Oppositions called "Postfunctionalism" which dismissed progr-B'

tures at the AA that then beca111e thEJ bJsis of the book. And 1n ter·n1s of and function as part of a 500 year old, pre-industrial human!

allies, Peter has a rare and unbelievable r1er1erosity to create and support a practice. So a redefinition of program was certainly not part

field ~hich other· people flourish. Probably he is partially motivated out of a the lnstitute's agenda. Yet, as is often the case, what is hidden

kind of perverse sense of curiosity of what will h.1pr:ien to trem. It vwJs '.3irnul- as interesting as what is in full view. Anthony Vidler's texts ani

tzineously cl st1mulc1ting field. ate.st bed, and an ::1ccel13rated arJinq p1·oceclu1·e lectures on Boull9e, Ledoux, and Lequeu were extraordinarily pe

He 1Nas extremely skeptical. but also extremely supportive ceptive, for example, showing programmatic rituals and spat,1

At that tin1e I also h.1ci the luXLll"Y of he1nrJ the only perso11 111 ;:1lr11ost the sequences in the architecture of Lequeu's lodges. Far from bei.r

er1t1re f\lew York scene-excopt lhe Gr8ys-to be 111Volvecl 1111\n,er"1c._1111sSL1os pre-industrial, his lectures suggested bridges to the most coi

So I hJLI the ~Jr~)at acJvar1tage of 111vis1bil1ty, ~is no one w,1s 111teresrerl 1n th~ temporary art practices, including modes of notation used in pe

r11c1ter1c1I I 'l'/dS resear-ch1ng I w.---is an 111tcli1~_1er1t person ,Je,1l1nrJ ·n1th rhe formance art. But the lnstitute's prevalent discourse then w::.

( Ji:,b,.1s!=!rl rnc1teri;il th::it nobody could L.111der·st,1,1r:I I h,1d the hesi cf h0 t-J-) wnr·lds autonomy. My inclinations were more towards intertextuality.

tO tO

0) tO

0 0)

I

• • •• • . . • • • • ,.. ...

"--~" .. • • z~~·j • • •

••

/ 7. What was the relationship between this early research and writing and the radical reconceptualization of program evidenced in your design for the Pare

de la Villette?

There is a very direct relationship. I explained La Villette as a kind of

horizontal skyscraper. The relationship to Delirious New York was

so unbelievably literal that, as our p1·actice evolved, it has inevitably

become rnore indirect At first those ideas worked as an example or

prototype, but then it became simply an influence or area of atten­

tion. I still notice occasionally that the early research returns in an

almost literal way, certainly 1n CCTV. So it's a source that we feel

free to ignore, but there's always a pull. Except when there's a kind

of anti-pull. Or when it has no relevance whatsoever_ For instance

when I work on a house, it's totally in abeyance

But I also consider 1t as a historical given, anc! so 1r1 texts like

'Gener 1c City" and "Junkspace" 1t rernains a reference, but a refer-

2r1ce we consr_ur1tly suppres:, or refine

... n

C\J 0)

-s ~-. c-, , --"; ~

~ _.

My work on The Manhattan Transcripts began with a tripartite definition of

architecture as space, action, and movement. The resulting mode of nota­

tion was used throughout the Transcripts and led directly to the La Villette

principle of superimposing points (of activities), lines (of movement), and

spaces {of appropriation). The precedent for my point grid was interesting

in its relationship to programs. In the mid-1970s, I used to give my stu­

dents at the AA excerpts from ~afka, Poe, Borges, andJoyce as__Q.[_g_grams.

In order to organize the complexity of Joyce's text with a number of stu­

dents, I gave them a point grid that announced the one at La Villette. It

proved a great way to explode the park's programmatic complexity and

reorganize it around the points of intensity of the fo_l~e~._Simultaneously, I was writing more theOre-HCa-1 texts-"Architecture and Limits" and

"Violence of Architecture"-which addressed tfie issue of program directly.

('") 0)

;;- ~--.

PRAXIS B .... Koolhaas + Tschumi: On Program·

8. Some critics have written about the return of the megastructure, not only your practice but also in other architect's designs. Do you agree, and to wh

would you attribute the recuperation of this type? How is this 'new' megastn.li ture different from its sixties predecessors?

j i:r.:re's c) very secluct1 11e ancl pore11t1 . .:illy ver·y ria1ve forTn of 1ook­

,11q Lit the onst f1fteer1 years, v11hereby 1;ou begin by sa1;1nQ that

.)rcl11tccture rncets n1E:\Jalu111cir1ia, a:1d rnegalornani.J is

d~'.bdsed E3ui: fortuncJtel 1; the force of the r11arket flushed 1t

,,,:iciy ·n1th the unfortunate cornm1tmer1t to postrnociernisrn

r'rif-:'rl !!l the DOs the market seerneJ to parc1liel anci e11en spon"

soi or support r~1d1cal recJef1n1tions of forrn. In the late 90s.

together with the Uestruction of the World Trade Center. form

WdS d1scred1ted. and perhaps also the possibility for architects'

part1c1pat1on and compl'1c1ty with the r11arket econorr1y Now

,Ne're all looking for so111eth1r:g which gives us not so much

µower-because I cion't think rnany people are nostalgic for

power, and it's still a very dirty word-but perhaps a larger

scope of what architecture could do, or could say.

"" c:'~ • . g • , u z 2 s " e E " :, c ] 3\3 0

:,

lO (£) m m

The recent Factory 798 project in Beijing started with our wish to save i'.

liveliest cultural center in China from being razed to make way for ten miH r

square feet of residential towers. After talking to the artists and galleri~,

there, we proposed to keep the art program below and put the housing p

gram above, hovering over the existing art neighborhood. The vertical supr­

points were located anywhere we could place them between the existing bW,

ings on the ground, so that the resulting "random" grid became a lattice. T'

project generated an enormous amount of media coverage since people sa'

as a way to keep the old while moving forward with the new. Maybe in part c: .. to the response to our project, the government decided not to go ahead v,11: ·

demolition. So maybe we saved the neighborhood but ultimately lost a proje.!':-

I do not think the project could have been done elsewhere but China. Frie·­

market economy and megastructure are two terms that rarely go togeth,,:

Who will pay for megastructures? Today's capital is transient, while megc:c

tructures are not. So maybe you can call the newest megastructures a resn...:,

gence of criticality. {What an ugly word!) Megastructures often act "'­

manifestos. Our Factory 798 project was a buildable manifesto.

c------minor bar.community

c"

~ " -!; q 0 . • a c 0 ] c • > 0 c ~ § ro ? 0 ~ ~

0 g c 0 • Q g

" > 8 "

£

' "" . • " ~ c ~

~ -f , . w • E ~ Q..E:

E ' 0

~ <( ~ E c : 0

1 3' " 0 ' . ij 0 :, ~ ] " , • ] l 0 > c . E 0 • e ~

e :, z ~ " a ~ 0. g i 5 0

,..._ (]) m m

- - ---:

r\'.IY.l!,'l_, ci;,.r:i.c: l•ffUCT ... ~

------~

9. How does the above drawing represent program? Is this a diagrammatic

device, an operative tool, a formal construct, a descriptive idea, or a combina­

tion of these or none of these?

Not that I have a particularly high regard for diagran1s, but

this one is simply an illustration to enable others to under­

stand our process. It's not at all a cliagra111, but a drawing

that came after the fact. Hidden in it is a more simple read­

ing of which elen1ents of a particular kind of building can be

stable. and which have to ren1ain volatile. -This is simply an

end product, a retroactive illustration of what, 111 cl n1ore

private sense, is a way of thinking

The real diagram is the one that addresses stability

and instability. In other projects there were diagrams,

barcodes of stability ancl instability, or defined and unde­

fined spaces.

0, 0,

_':,) ; .C •

c]

0 0

All of the above. Most projects start with a program. First, you have to understand the program's intricacies, but also what you want to do with it. S~y9y_ex.p.l.gra possi­bl~~n_!igurations and relations. I do not mean bubble diagrams here, but spatial connections or sequential routes. The quickest way is to diagram it, i.e. to concep­tualize what you want to do with that program. There are many potential program­matic concepts. Sometimes that's it: your programmatic concept becomes your

architectural form. At Lerner Hall, we had to put in 6,000 mailboxes, an auditorium, music rooms,

and so on. I wanted a central meeting space (which was not in the official program) so that all the parts of the program would be visible and accessible-a vertical social space of sorts. But a program always has to be inserted into a given site, which often has multiple constraints, whether physical or otherwise; in other words, lt has a context. That in turn affects the selection or the expression of the program­matic concept. At Lerner, there were many specific site constraints, including his­toricist ones, but I could take advantage of one of them, namely, the fact that the campus is half a level higher than Broadway. I could link these two levels by a ramp and continue the ramp to the top of the building, assembling the pieces of the pro­gram with its 6,000 mailboxes along the ramp. Program? You need to figure it out,

literally. That's what this diagram is.

,-1 0

c <

(\J 0

a .u

--

PRAXIS 8 Koolhaas t Tschumi: On Program 1

10. Recently, various critics have argued that you are responsible for inspirin;

an entire body of work regarding program, both pedagogical projects and alsc

trends in architectural production outside of academia. What is your reactior

to this type of blame:' acknowledgment, or attribution?

I can't Jeny thnt l'n1 per·versely interested 1r1 these 'artribut1ons· I have such a vast attention Look, l do not think that architecture must begi

spc1n thc1t I can't deny that I follow then1 But I th.ink that at this point 1t 1s not attr1but1on fhe with form. It begins with a concepior.an.idea.,.Som.··

e;dent of 111ec.lra coverage has r-eachecJ con1plete i11sanity It 1s sad that the cl1sc1D!rne 1s so of t_bese concepts or ideas ma¥.-be prc;>gr_ammatic

dependiJ11t on one group of people to prov'1de its subject Architecture is the materialization of a concept

l'in still totally cJecllcated to the d1scrpline. in terms of working in 1t. but since 1995 I've and I feel no qualms ab_out callin9_~~~--E.!:_o_g_!:am .:

effectively left the clisc1pline I have alrnost no friends left 111 architecture. lv\y int11nate material, much ~~~s or_gl~J:iS enclo

friends used to be architects, but now they're all outside the discipline because I need nour- sures a~e m_aterials. Yau~ ~Isa.us~ programs thE

ishrne11t and within the field there is an almost infernal circle of regur·gitation. Ancl that of w~~~~~~c-~ __ O_!:_~Q_n_d_rjg1o__tra_nsformed painting, o.i

course rnakes everyone who 1s regurgitated bitter So thJt even 1f you produce sornethrng Joyce and SchOnberg__!:ransforme,,clwriting anc

gooJ, there is a cynicc1I view of it fron1 the beginning. So while l'n11ncreas1ngly disenchanted muS[C~-MOSt interesting, howeve0s to design ne'/1

with the practice of being interviewed, I ho_pe_ this quest1onna·1re produces someth1nf1 new ( Conditions for HVirlg,-whether urban or otherwise.

or Jt least something less than totally precl1ctable. '-------------~---- --- _. ___ _

(") 0

(-°'<:Jiu'' ,,-l - / \ I_ '' I . '

~)1 r-L~, )J~( ( c,,.I( /.1 J­

Co11 ',fycl1r)T__>;

( /I ' .

'<I' 0

:J·,_ _.j_o 's •,..__L,.)--,,,_l /

l . Jc j )'Lt!\~

• { ' ~t' '' y i f, . \. ) '-<....:

Ill 0

• I

(D 0

-1 ! 1 n I ) r.,-< :,', ,., ,,_

PRAXIS B WORK Program Primer 111

Program Primer v 1.0 A Manual for Architects Brought to you by Dan Wood and Amale Andraos of WORK

Introduction: About the Primer

Program is back! After years of postmodern whimsy, paper architecture, blobs, and countless other formalist tendencies, we have come full circle back to good old form that originates in function. Or have we? In buildings such as the Seattle Public Library a new, broader definition of "function" has given rise to an

unbelievable array of spatial configurations and formal expressions. This more inclusive definition of the architectural program encompasses ecological con­cerns, cross-disciplinary collaborations, new technologies and virtual spaces,

exploitation of the temporal and seasonal, and any number of combinations, juxtapositions, manipulations, and reinventions of the simple list of spaces and areas that heretofore bore its name.

Many architects today are interested in incorporating this new approach into their designs, but are unsure about how to do it. After years of toiling away on napkin sketches and then looking for inspiration in the beautiful crumple of the rejects, it is understandably difficult to set aside your self-image as an artiste and start designing by Excel. This Primer will help you get started with a simple

series of exercises and examples designed to open up your mind to the new pos­

sibilities for creative expression through programmatic exp/oration. In no time, you will find yourself doodling diagrams and graphs and-hopefully-creating

the next generation of masterworks that combine both programmatic variation and formal elegance.

How this Primer is organized:

+ Program Basics

+ Program Exercises

+ Beyond Architectural Tools + Ten C-:h;=mnP~ Yn,, 1:c1n I= vnorr frnm Pcnrff'>no

Program Basics 1. The Definition of Program The traditional def1nit1on of the program is ""the formal,

vvntten instructions from the client to the architect, setting

out the necessary requirements for a building." For our pur­

poses, we are interested in expanding that definitior1 to

include the informal and the unwritten as well as alternate

sources of "requiren1e11ts": from mechanical and structural

engineers to artists, technology experts, consultants,

authors, users, builders, and-most importantly-the

architect. By thinking creatively about certain performotrve

requirements for architecture, and through careful and

clever manipulation of the input of all of the other inter·

ested parties, the architect can actively participate in the

redefinition of program every time a project is begun,

2. The Evolution of Program (see John McMorrough,

"Notes on the Adaptive Reuse of Program;' p. 102-110)

3. The Eight Great Principles of Program

+ Diagram The generation of strong concepts-simple

enough to incorporate the huge number of complex rela­

tionships that exist in every architectural proJect­

through the drawn, written, or spoken "diagram"·

a quantitative and qualitative means of expressing a

set of spatial relations and describing experiential

needs without any overt reference to form, using only

iconic elements, words, or numbers.

+ Shuffling The utilization of architects' capacity for com­

plex mental manipulation of three-dimensional space to

shuffle and recombine programmatic elements instead.

What used to be called "deconstructing" can be utilized

as a critical reading of program where parts are omitted,

others are recombined, new parts are created, relation­

ships are broken, and others established.

+ Sampling The ability to insert events, expertise, tech­

nologies, and programs outside the common field of

architecture into a project.

+ BreakBeat A non-linear apprnach to design where "this"

does not necessarily follow "that", one that embraces

uncertainties, clash, and the unexpected,

PROGRAM PRIMER 11)

+ Critical Distance rv1ow1t;:1111:1·1~J the ene1·~-II/ ;_=1r·1cl cl1~~1~.1pl,1·1, ·

required to reirnag1ne, reinvent, and recon1b111e Plernent?,

of the client's progran1, no n1atter how cleta1led. borin~1.

or con1plete the clocu111ent tl1ey ha11cl you seen1s

+ Range of Motion Finding potentially interestinq aspects

of a project unaddressed in the client's official program

and making them integral to the project.

+ Flow The ability to quickly switch back and forth

between the quantitative aspects of a program and the

qualitative ones, identifying and finding the potential

for synergy between the two,

+ Opposition The staging of disparnte elements towards

the formulation of a concept adjacency tensions,

negative/positive, three-dimensional figure-grounds,

power relationships, etc.

+ Dieting Weeding through the reams and reams of a writ­

ten program in order to find the essential kernels of use,

activity, performance, or function that will transform an

ordinary building into a lean, program-driven machine.

4. What You Need To Get Started

+ Pentel sign pens or sharpie markers Throw out those

fine liners; programmatic expression is about clear con­

cepts and integrating the quantitative. A broad pen aids

in this broad-brush approach.

+ Plain paper If you are going to have fresh ideas, why

trace over something old? Put those rolls away,

+ Model-making materials In the end, we are creating

three-dimensional space. Working with diagrams, graphs,

lists and charts can sometimes allow you to get carried

away. By immediately and often translating your program­

matic ideas into spatial ideas, you will never lose sight of

the goal,

+ A project This is up to you, Go get one 1

+ And some imagination Make that a lot Never underesti­

mate the power of a good idea

\

PRAXIS 8

Program Exercises Ill ___ _ The Twist

Con1b1n1r1g t, 110 or r11ore progrorns rn CJ s1ngio fo11n

T.:1ke tv,,o prof1r,Jn1s 1ahose co·clependency is eithc~r unex­

pected or so unquest1oncci as to be bJnal ;_,11d tvvist them

toi;Jetht:r in such a 1/'/Lly that the resultant cornbinot1on cre­

ates an entirely r;ew sequential experience c1nci for111 Like

Mr Softee's chocolate-vanilla swirl. the exciten1ent is in

the con1bination, and how it was achieved. rather thcin the

fact that you now have two flavors 1n your cone. l'licholas

Grin1shaw's first project, a tower of bathrooms for a stu­

dent hostel in a group of buildings 1Nithout plumbing, is

such a project. The pre-fabricated WC and shoi.ver units

are arranged around a spiral ramp that accesses each

floor. rhe genius of the solution is in this ramp. It cre­

ates-through what on the surface appears to be purely

functional means-an incredible social space for the hos­

tel. Student residents, in their search up or down for an

available u111t, encounter other students from other floors

and are almost forced to interact. The fact that most are

in their bathrobes 111akes an already-charged atn1osphere

even more so ..

The Square Tomato

Creotino nevv forms for programs

_________ j

If/ORK: Progrc1m Primer 11~

--+ --+

; i

An Italian engineer realized that shipping tornatoes was a tricky business, with a lot of vvasted product. His solution was to gro,N

the1111Nith1n boxes, creating perfect cubes for easy stacking and shipping. Never mind that people did not want to eat square ton1a­

toes-they did pack like a dream. Any form can be reinvented and improved. Try to rethink form from a programn1atic perspective

and the results can be revolutionary. PLO T's design for a municipal swimming pool is a case in point. Their circular design not only

provided for cin exciting building, it also allowed for continuous lane swimming by running the main lap pool around the perirneter

f\lo 1nore bu111ping into that lady in the flo 1Nered bathing cap as she tries to execute the perfect turn off the wall.

AIL ...... -.t~"'.:.- ..

., .,

I s4 I ~ ..

The Swan

Cki( t'.·, ~Ji"CC1":.:l! t1;c11J':., iKJllc·r ,·no111', :111(1 tl1r"

H c, fcil:c~ thl! n1,:.ist L1r1!Jui1r-"v.:.1l;ly l.iur 11;;; ' ·~" 111;-:ucll 1:. or uCj!y pr·c1e11.:.1111 aricl tr·y tc111.c C'...ltl

ceptu;.1l1?e 1t as sor110th111g IJE!autilul. pr·ocluc

t1vc•. or 1nsp1r in~J Ar list Joep var·1 Liesl1out's

"Total Faecal Solution. for· exari1ple. tr-ies to

r11ax1n11ze the benefits and aesthetic paten·

t1al in the n1ost base of hu111a11 act1v1t1es. A

toilet is set high enou~Jh off the ground to

incorporate a collection tank below. Methane

gas 1s siphoned orf, water 1s filtered to the

point of potability. waste 1s cornpacted, and

con1post is created. An adjacent garden and

strategically placed portholes provide evi­

dence of the process. The resultant struc­

ture-in van Lieshout's trademark style-is

both visually arresting and strangely beauti­

ful. It becon1es a true shrine to human

If'~ \!.V'i.£, ~·:' ,,,:-, ffl:l-8u:!,

waste .. and human responsibility.

The Wedge of Swans

Toke the Swan and scale it up

Making beauty from detritus is even n1ore challenging

at the large scale, but can also cr·eate an1azing opportu­

nities for spatial and progran1ma~ic experi1nentation.

In the competition for "un-city," a huge development in

New York, the tearn of OMA, Toyo Ito, Davis Brody Bond,

2x4. and KPF teamed ur with 0.1.R.T. Studio's Julie

Barg111an to try to in1agine an ecologically sensitive/

celebrative two n1illion sq ft developn1ent. The result­

with grey water· recycling running alongside ten-story

escalators. a 11er111eable asphalt parking structure,

and an atriun1 con1b'1ned w·1th "inlet" to cleanse water

fror11 the cJevelopn1ent c111cl the East River-was, in the

end. too r11uch for thf: co111pet1tion sponsors to take

Unfo,·tunately

PROGRAM PRIMER ( 5)

(

~- Pa!l'Jit::i "-_1gr?•11.,,.,1 •'01--iUr·

e

i '

- -- - - - I

Pearl in the Oyster

!1,1L::1ll/ bu1!cl111us and j)IUjl'C\·_,; iL!,:lil'l' IL'lk!\l[·Oll':, '.-,,J·:, t-'', 'I'!,::••

v,;i1,:,1·0 tin; opportur·,;t,,!'-; for c.1·,.J:·tc,c:11•;_;1 CC\lllt:',; c_,,, ci1c· !:rn1•,,,-, H1,'

·r,.

uut areas of spec1f1c1ty c.1nc.l e:,pl::i1l:11,·_1 '.hc·•1; str :11J~q,cc1I!-,· ,1.,:·_11·11 t' ,,_, r ... 11,-·,·1"",

of ~Jer1e11c proq1a111. the inter·1JliJ'/ bPt 1Nl'C 111 ihl-' c1r_,:',e1·1c :-1:1cl ti1c '>Pl·?,~,f cc:,·

crec1te inter 1c:st1n~J and d1-cH11;:it1c tr:,ins:un (_Hvl/.i, '.; Uni,;cr·sc,I Budd111:·1 (}i 11ploycd

this strc.1tegy at an enornrous sccile by concerotr·c1t1110 not onlv L'il! o! the·· uql1

duck I 1ng" specif 1c1t1es (see "The Swan" p 114) of risers. elovator s. t'ff1erge11c l'

stairs, etc. w1th111 four enorn1ous cores. but also by i11clud111g nll thu c1rch1tec­

turally interesting spaces there as wel I: douhle-hc1ght "lofts.'' coun yard~.

111eeting roon1s, executive suites, etc The bulk of the building, generate cl

through research into the n1ost efficient office planning rnoclules and r·equir·e­

ments, was left open as a horizontal plane; the four "to,Ners'' of speci fie

program cut through this plane to provide vertical architectonic relief fro1n

potential corporate monotony

bf--·-~-J The Time Share

Different uses at different times 1n the san,e place

Find ways to exploit uses which do not overlap in tin1e; spaces can be used for

different things during the night and the day, fr-om Dile season to the next, or

periodically throughout a single day. Universal space, the drea1n of the n1ocl­

er·nists. does not have to be so ponderous and en1pty-think of the high school

gy1T1nasium that sponsors dodgeball as well as con11ne11ce111ent, the holiday

pageant at night, and n1ystery n1eats in the afternoon The n1ost innocuous

coincidences of time can sometin1es be exploited to create enor111ous cul Lura I

change. The longest drought in LA history, the invention of new types of resin

plastics for· wheels earlier that year. and a s111all gang of disaffected surfers. all

came together in a se,·ies of dry pools one su111n1er to chnn~Je sports. fashion,

and the face of teenage cool forever

r-~ ( ~'•'"

( a

'

~ PROGRAM PRIMER ( 3 J

' I ' I

I •'-·· l-~

t··:_ " ... ,, ~·

/

_,,

I I

PRAXIS B VI/ORK Progr,1m Prrmer 115

)

The Better Mouse Trap

.c;;,..,. [! '11 ·.k 1n<J tl:l' ur-i-1.riur•;

') or )1>_,' t :i I!,-~'.:; It ''.O ·au: t i~1/lh 111'.:! t O t ~:!.i to ti 'I~ 1Ji.L,IYJC ll nci SI I ll fJ \•; I e I r1111~ I' t '~On if-; th II'.~ no (J r1 I~ llLlcl prev i Ull sly C!Jrl s I cl e, (' cl VI Ort hy Of rf] 1nl/(lll ·

t1ur·: A i:~._1!U:y c!~_.~rr-:f-c of ~~ep::u·:,r·1 t 11,1t e'/1::?:·1;tl1,r~g ch:1t, ,-,n IJ1--! 111•..-,-;nt1~c! !l.1s IJeen 11Y/entecl 1s r1ecei;::;.~1·•; ro lJP. ~1 guod pro 0r-,J1n

r_11·1,,.c,n ~;1ch1tect. yo11111u,:,t tY.o ,11)!13 to 1rn:-1r.1w,e yuur self 111 Oki shot3'i of '/U1.1r· cl1r;nt or the people 1,vho v1ill 1r1h~1b1t your bu:lding ar:cl

re-1111c.lt;J1r1e the '/1c1ys ti1<:1t '.>p;::1ces c,:111 c:1cco1:1rnoclate 0ct1,11ty 111 our· u'/111 ,,,;ur·k. Y'/8 l1~i'le tr·i(•d to do this even ~'1i1e11 our cl1,Jnts clo not

'llf);_ir shoes. Th0 V,lld Pup •nc1s J cu111n11ss1011 for· ·.:i clo(Jhouse •11her·e111 •,1,·f-{ triec.l to 1rnng111e tl1c ult1n1c'.ite horne for the ··urb;:-1r1 clog··

f\ corr1b111;:-1t.1on of tnJ:. . .'1ci111dl. v1clcu :ocrc:e1:s. clrlll z,11 uc.Jor· 111;1ch1ne zillov,ec! the L11"bci11 clog to experience sorne of the proso1c c.Jnine

joys of its rurcJI cousins-ch;Js111\=J n1c.11lrnen. Fr·isbee tossing. barking c1t cats-c!Lw1ni;i the long clays cooped up in the .Jpart111ent

Other· sce11;:irios 111cludecl boost1tHJ tl1e u1 bnn do(:/s self-eslee111-·tho Chihuahua 1·oci11g the ~]l"eyhouncls, For exaniple, and ,,,,inning

+ +

Simile

One progrom clefrning c111other

If sornething looks just like so1118thing else, or 1·emincls

you of someth.1ng else. llli'lYbe it could be sornething

else. Use a program. or an entire proJect, to define

another in c.111 efficient c:incl 0rchitectur·ally-scalecl n1eta­

phor. Sorneone was s1nart e11ough to note thc1t. "hey­

th1s new Fic:1t factory is ~Joi11g to be as big as the testing

track" (or noted th3t the testing track 1,,vas c1s long as

the factor" 1;) and ,::ir chi t1Je;tl 11·;::il h1 story W3S niuc.le

,,1, •

... ,,•,,, ........ •',•',,• :::::··· ..

...

PRAXIS 8

Bondage

Us111g budget or other constr-ornts ns progrc:nis 111 their 0 1,vn r 1qht

'"Cr-eati'.J1ty" 111 ;J1-chrtcctur::.il practice olter1 seen1s 111.e iJ techn1c:::il

in1p0ss11Jd1t11 Bet1,'1een bu1lcl1ng ,1ncl zor,1n,;:] code:3. client 1nsec:urit1es.

i)ucl9e ts created by clrcc.1rners, r1n1cl ri::qu11 en1ents for acljc1cenc1es

;Jnd h1er0rch1es, the l11nitc1t1ons of construction and contr-actor-s. 311d

the sirnple tendency of c11eryth'1n(J to hecid 111ev1t:Jbly towards that

101,vest con1n1011 denorn1nator, it 1s often difficult to corne up '.'/1th ciny

ideas that can get built. Since the best defense is often a good

offense, one of the mc::11n tactics of pr·orJrJn1-basecl arch1tectur-e 1s to

use these constraints as the departure point For design In our proJ­

ect for c1 res·1dential to11ver in Beirut 1Ne quickly realized th~t-con­

tr3ry to almost everything else in the city-the bu1lcling rules •.Nere

incredibly co11str-ict1ng: the zoning en11elope forcecl the building to sit

;it rhe very ht=ir.k of the site, aw2,.y frn1n c1ny rossilJle views of the

~1ecli te,-r .Jnea11; every r-oorn ,·equirccl either a "pnrnary" or "seco11clary"

view vvith strict definitions; balconies vvere n1anclated, etc. Our solu­

tion consisted of building our "ideal" building, facing directly towards

the seo, L1ntil the point at which the zoning envelope cut in, and then

s1tt111g the n1andated building on top, creating a building whose fifth

and sixth floors were more desirable than its seventh and eighth and

allowing our clients to maximize their profits in the what are usually

the least desirable lower Floors.

-~~--- \ \ -·

....

~--.. . 5 I

<

; D ,·,'.I -- ' I,---:~ ,

I

~ 1,, ')

- - -- I

<

\,'/ORK· Program Prirner

I

I

i !

....

I

The Mermaid

''I''

.\/,-•1111c'1'd In iht'<I (_l'al,lil:bur..:,k rvlt1ciC I' I l~J~"-\" ti 1•--',: I< (<II,'

tor r11s of c111 <-iLIU1t1ve c,quc-1t1un of u11: l!ldted pL11 T_'., \/~111·,1),'

1estaLir·c:i11ts + golf pr·c_1ct1ce r2111~11::: • :~part111e11t 1·,u1lcl1t\! • (

!) ."

,'!I' ti,

1· \ ,: > - ;_1,111 .L_ · '( 1u. ,·,, 1_,.·,··

I ;:, r ~ 1 r 'LI. l' ti Ir I t I l(',: f= c Ir 1111 y, I 1 · :, 1 ,1 : 1. < ·, J\ r , ·I: L ·• f ·;u-,

houseoliolcl fur·11iture elen11211t to a sc11es of b1cyc lt!Ci .. 1linv,1 : 1:1 I ur .·1 :--,r: kdl ~_!i lJL:I; ni : 1-. i(_'r ~; \(1 1..lJ: 111 · 1 c,i :,_·! I ,, ·· . 1: 1._ ! \ r, ·,, 1,

Roll Out

Repeating o single µrogron1 over· and over w1tli

subtle variations

The architect's ver·sion of"staying on 111ess3gc"

can at tin1es be as effective as it is for- our· politi­

cians. So111etin1os a brilliant idea 1s best

expressed througl1 r-epet1tio11. This repetit10111s

often 111ost sublin1e when it is cloqqeclly pursued

through the stages of 111011otony. borecion1. and acl

nauseun1 to a point where its power- cannot be

cleniP.ci In On1'! Architectur·µ',::, plc1r1111n~J pr-cijcct fut'

Juclcni.)LJr~J-1/',JF:sL thev cl1scovP.n:cl that, i11 ELn-u1:>r~.

siq11ificant c;ubs1clies exist for- introclucin~J 111uch

safer t1·;_'1ff1c circles. rather- than inter-sections. as

connectors for nl'WV residPritial cli:otricts Thf-'ise

sub,,idies 111 far:t oulv-1eirJh the costs of construc­

tion_ ~1llov.1'nf1 ck~\'f:lopor~, to use-: the r-r1r:i1101,/ to

1nlr ocluc8 l h111qs lrke olcl-age hous1n~. p~ 1bi1c f .c1c1li­

l1A:..,, anu tho ilf',e. 011e's nc1t1xal reoctior1 1Nc;s

/ t!·:e·-c:fc-ir-c '.:o cr-oc:,:e C1 pion vvho.se cl1 1v1nq co11ct~pt

v-r_i:, to i:·,uocLJce ;_:,~, n1c,ny traffic ci1-cl1::'.-; ac, possi­

l)L:. f i:-1c1,,:,q t1 11un1i)F::1 or inrJPn101,_1·1 v,1·_~'/ ·, to ocr:11py

ti lf)'I' C~:!"l((-::·s i1i-1,_J f)fJI 1p1,r:: ll~S

PROGRAM PRIMER { 7 )

- [ (

r' ~ ,/ IA, '

'11,- )l,'

.... I

PRAXIS 8

The Dive

Us.·ng o µr·ogr·c 1n to generute o c;ingle s1,vooping forn1

It 1°~ <",on1ei.,vh,1t of a ru!e for those of 11s not nan1ed Fr,:.,nk Gehry that the strange

'.ihapes '/OU cL1n 1rnaqir:e cir-ci nc,;er as exc1t1ng ;Js the strancJe shapes '/OU find. often

1n the 1nost uril·kely uf pl~1ces Foun thc1t is deri 11ed frorn progrcJm often outshines

1~ven the hloblJ1est of blobs. In their theoretical project for Dubai, LE.FT proposes

three h1nh-1·1ses 1n the rnidst of the desert •Nhose forrns are entirely driven by the

pr Dgr,:1n1 tf.1:-~y h,1ve chosen for the future of Dubai. landing for international planes.

The e:~truclecl and t'.Nlstecl runway p.Jtterns-t.Jken from actual airport runway

c!esifJns-create stu11ning forn1s 111 the desert

Distribution of Wealth

I I ,i,

\

1\1ox1n1izing ~r1e effects of the best programs

rv1any builcli11gs are pri,narily composed of

repetitious elen1ents thc:Jt can overwhel1n the

1nore interesting parts of the program. By

sprinkling these interesting spaces through­

out the building, ho•Never, every repeating

floor or roorn can be energized with a new

activity. In their Hotel Pro Forma project,

nArch1tects ,,ppropriated the 1nost public

;-111cl exc1tinr1 part of thr~ hotel progra1n-

th0 lubby-,11irl rli:otr1hutecl it equally i11

lirotv-1er-n1 P11er-v floor. u 0.::ot111rJ 2111 c1lter-n,1ti11g

',C:ct1,11-, i:J lJ.-Jd1 c10111 flo1)r I !obby floor clia­

r11:1111 /1i::r; 11 i)r 11-,r_1:J ~i,r_, ,i <t:1tQ1nr;11t of a public

Ir ,1)1,,; rn ,;,.:,:1--1; 111?r.lrn111n ilrJnr

--+

WORK Program Primer 117

The Blind Men and the Elephant

, ;·, ,·1r1ci 1durn,t'/ '!1 or l11!• '.u :·1 /U '.I :_1,. 1r1r_! ul 'JT1:L·nr I! 1• (_'11:1: r'LI' · ,·, r i. - I',', (1_11 cr11111,,,. it , 1', "" :•,r ·,· Ir 11 1·, 11 •

11; 1 I ifC 111•-'' lei

c_;HucLur·,_, vnth the slc-.itecl dPslre thc:it the clispc11;1tl· 0(:~'1_1p:11·1t'.-; nl li11_. h,1dc!1r:(_: c.il1 rc,t:-w, tl11:·1' (1:·'HlllC rliE'rlll

t,e:, thu Prov11lCk:I (_jovt_i:·11n1G11t. a schoul for the, p~r}ur 11·1111i;_i ;:111' .. 2.11d thl:-:' rn,1111 con,~t!i 1 11;/1 of tl11_, UI.','

Ur 11quer1ess was created by esL01bl1sh111~J cJ1 ffe1 en t ur1 tr ar ices a11cl cor1c!1t1011c::. for· ti He ti II el-:' pr ui;Jr a1 ns. eacl 1

one fac111~J a streal appr·opr·ic::ite to its pr·o~p-all"l. ( f he crnicer t hall e11tc10d lr·ori-1 i:l g1anc! l_inuil:--:'Var·cl. the

school fron1 th8 hip shopping str·eet, ancJ the uclrn1111strauve tower d1"?,c1 etely fro1n ~--l s1dl' str·e~l) ro p1uv1de

an overall cor1cept, the prot1ran1 was la1cl out 1n th1·ee par·al!el bands that were then con11J111ccl 1nto .J contin­

uous rint1 of protiran1 around the building's new C8t1terp1ecEi. the glass-roofed concert hcill

Fusion

Creating power through fusing disparate elen1ents together

While gourn1et chefs and 111inin1alists 111av disagree. a lot of excite111ent anci activity

can be gene1-atecJ throutJh the int1-oductio11 of n1any different inrwed1ents to a project

and fusing then1 together with a common thread. In our competition r:iroject fo,- a nevv

plan for the sleepy town of Akurey1·i. Iceland. we created a continuous pedestria11 loop

connecting the n1ai11 sights of the city. VVe the11 infused the loop with thr·ee prog1·a111,:,

density, the 111troduct1011 of nevv housing typologies based on density of units; activity,

a series of paths and routes allowing people to ice skate, walk. rollerblade. kayak. jorJ.

swim, or ski around the loop, and ecoloqy. a series of green spc1ces "cLffiJled" by the

city's botanical qarclen plus a loop-w1clo concentration of cdternato ener~JY sources.

fro111 wincl·povver·ecl streetl1qhts to ~,olc:ir· colloctors

PROGRAM PRIMER ( 9 J

/

Connections

/ I

' I

PRAXIS 8

Beyond Architectural Tools: Equipment and Accessories

+ Foam Never Felt so Good: the Foam Cutter

The hot ~'11r e foarn cutter allows e\/en the youngest intern to

crank out an unending stre21m of arch1tecton·1c concepts 1N1thin

un extren1ely short t1n1e Its polf1er 1s a11Yesorne, allowing any idea

to be in1mGdiately expressed in three-dimensional form. cheaply

and efficiently. HcJ11e you not"1ced that European 21rchitecture

these da'/S ,s a little n1ore daring and expressive? It's no coinci­

dence that there is not a single good manufacturer of small

hot-wire foarri cutters in the US

+ Abracadabra: Design by Excel

I r·s 11otjust for N1BA's an more. Not only can a mastery of Excel

help break the ice with your developer clients (and don't be afraid

to ask For tips, those guys are spreadsheet kings) it can also aid

immensely in the abstraction of program and the rapid manipula­

tion of sizes. adjacencies, and distribution. It can help manage

your fees as well

+ Size Does Matter: Expanding and Contracting

Program with AutoCAD

Budget cuts getting you down? Try "scale all 98%" to your pro­

gram diagrams to effect an across the board value engineering

coup. Things not exciting enough? Selectively beef up certain

programs while slimming others; the difference will only be

noticeable in the improved quality of the finished product. The

"Stretch" command is also handy.

+ For Help Doing the Exotic Stuff

Don't be afraid to call in experts, especially people who are not

architects. You would be amazed at how inspiring a theoretical

discuss·1011 with a n1echan1cal engineer can be ... no one has asked

them anythincJ except vent locations and shaft sizes for years.

\NORK: Program Primer

Ten Changes You Can Expect From Programmatic Design + A Firmer and Leaner Project

You'll be a1nazed how your project sails through client re•1ievvs,

value enginee1-1ng, and approv;:ils processes once ,t h;Js been

irnb1bed with J strong and si1nple prograrnrnat1c concept

+ Better Posture

You'll be able to better defend your positions vvhen others ccJn eas­

ily understand the ideas you want to express in your architecture

+ More Flexibility

If you start a project by creatively rein1agining I ts prograrnrn.Jt1c

elements, it becon1es easy to quickly do so throughout the

process as unexpected problems or cond'1tions arise.

+ Better Balance

Weighing options and variations eventually becomes second nature

and you will find your decision making abilities streamlined.

+ Less Back Pain

By cross-training-moving from Excel to the foam cutter to

AutoCAD to meetings outs'1de the office-you will find less strain

on your body.

+ New Friends

Eventually you will find yourself surrounded by non-cJrchitect

friends and colleagues. You'll find them much less intimidating

than you once imagined.

+ Social Skills

Instead of peppering your conversations with vague architecture­

speak, working with real world programmatic ele1nents wrll give

you a broad range of new subjects to talk about.

+ Staying Power

If you are able to convince your client of the strength of your con·

cept. you will be surpr1secl ,1t the a1nount of ideas thcJt will n~1nain

in the project until the end

+ More Fun

AcJn11t 1t. 1t is 111on~ enJ01;able to r-c,1cl ,] 'nell-cr.:iftecl ·;tor 1; th.111

poetry. you know it

+ More Profit

Just kicld111(J 1;0(/:·e: ,,till ·111 ,1rc:h·11c1c11